Faith and 'proof'

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hi, Socrates4Jesus. I missed this post of yours the other day. Sorry for the delay in getting to it:

It would depend on what the claim is.

Let’s pick someone less well established than Caesar. Let’s say one of the lesser Roman military commanders.

If the claim is simply that the commander existed, then I would be willing to trust a Roman historian who was not a contemporary (as that’s a pretty mundane claim). The more contemporary sources we can gather that confirm details about the commander, the more likely it becomes that the claim is true.

But let’s say the claim is of a magical nature. Let’s say that a Roman historian makes the claim that a commander had a magical omen occur or something of the sort (we do find these kinds of claims in Roman literature). Because this is an extraordinary claim, I wouldn’t take the word of someone who lived much later. I would want to verify the event’s occurrence with as many contemporary eyewitness accounts as possible. The more that we can gather, the more likely it becomes that the claim is true.

I’ve never disputed that Jesus (one Rabbi or several Rabbis who taught similar things) probably existed. It actually seems to me to be pretty likely that there was an individual upon whom the legends were based.

I have said that there is insufficient evidence to justify the claim that the magic-working Jesus of the gospels existed.

There’s certainly not enough evidence to justify the claims of Matthew 27:50-53 in which many dead bodies rise up and enter Jerusalem. I think we would have had some eyewitness accounts of that happening, if it were true.

So, in short, I suppose I have a stricter requirement of proof when the claim is of an extraordinary nature.

To put it another way: I have no problem accepting that the legends of King Arthur were based on a real king – but it would require a lot more than the stories to convince me that the magical stories themselves actually happened.

Hey, Mega:

I understand what you are saying. If a mere man was said to have raised even one person from the dead, there would be cause for skepticism. However, if that man claimed to be God, such an event would be cause to believe Him, at least for those who witnessed such a resurrection. A dead guy who had claimed to be God and said he would rise from the dead soon after his execution, and who then did just that, would provide even stronger evidence to those who witnessed Him after rising whole from the grave.

There are some events recorded in ancient MSS that to me seem nothing short of miraculous: The military conquests of Julius Caesar that we have already mentioned. The Greeks wining the battle of Thermopylae against the whole of the Persian army with a messily force of just 300 Spartans, 700 Thespian and 400 Thebans, is one such event. Alexander the Great defeating the Persian army that was many times larger than his own is another. Socrates, showing such genius in his dialogs, gives me reason to believe his claim that his ideas were not his own but came from some god of perfect wisdom. Whether these events actually transpired, i suppose, depends on the reliability of the ancient historical documents that recorded them.

Now, if one suspends the disbelief that the Christian God exists, it seems to me, the question that remains is whether the New Testament books are reliable historical documents. If you would care to temporarily suspend disbelief in the supernatural, i’d sincerely be interested in learning what you believe makes an ancient document historically reliable.

 

[MegaTherion]

you previously put forward the idea of ‘quantum state’ or ‘vacuum fluctuations’ as a cause for the universe.

there is no evidence that these things exist, indeed they are nothing more than an expression of particle interactions necessitated by the branch of logic called mathematics.

you obviously accepted those, based on extremely limited evidence, all of it logical in nature

Your continued confusion on this point is probably my fault for not making my point clearer, I suppose.

I do not accept the “quantum state” idea or the “vacuum fluctuation idea” as true, nor do I claim any of them as the source of the origin of the universe. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to accept any idea about origins.

I was proposing them as examples of possible ideas about origins – being a layman, I’m not completely sure how defensible any of them are given our current understanding of the universe (which we are updating every day).

But here’s the important point: I’m not the one claiming to have the answer. I didn’t start a thread and say: “Here it is! The origin of the universe is a quantum state! I know it and proclaim it as irrefutable truth!!!”

I’m not making a claim about origins. I’m quite candid about the fact that “We don’t know” (which is the only correct answer). I’m sorry if my previous posts in this thread created the impression that I am married to the idea of a quantum state or…whatever. I’m not. Whatever the answer is, we don’t know it. Nobody does.

You are the one making a claim. You actually claim to have the answer.

If I don’t find your argument convincing, then I am well within my rights to reject your conclusion and continue saying “We don’t know.”

So when we examine your argument, we find you using causality to address the Big Bang, before which there was no time and…perhaps…no causality.

Notice the word “perhaps.” We don’t know. We’re at a loss for an explanation.

It is possible that whatever it was that exploded into the Big Bang was following some kind of natural law that we don’t know anything about (a law that defies causality? That conforms to some different kind of causality?).

We’re still learning.

[By the way, you keep repeating that matter always existing would violate the second law of thermodynamics. It wouldn’t. That law only operates over time, and we’re talking about a “time” when there was no time.]

You keep claiming that my position is based on “desire” when in fact it’s based on a refusal to accept your argument, which isn’t convincing.

I’m not convinced that everything must have a cause; I’m not convinced that the universe in some form may not have always existed; I’m not convinced that there is such a thing as the supernatural; I’m not convinced that, even if I granted your entire flawed argument, that I would conclude anything beyond a deist god (which is only half a step removed from many kinds of atheism anyway).

In short, I’m not convinced. That doesn’t mean I know the answer.

 

[MegaTherion]

I understand what you are saying. If a mere man was said to have raised even one person from the dead, there would be cause for skepticism. However, if that man claimed to be God, such an event would be cause to believe Him, at least for those who witnessed such a resurrection.

I would think that if it were said that a person was a god and could raise people from the dead, then there would be even more cause for skepticism for those of us far removed from the events.

There are some events recorded in ancient MSS that to me seem nothing short of miraculous

But overcoming longshot odds isn’t a miracle. Statistically, we know that occasionally a smaller force might indeed triumph over a larger one (particularly if the larger force is less well-trained and less well-organized). A miracle would be if such upset victories never happened in recorded history. A complete lack of such victories would be a violation of what we would statistically expect.

None of those events you listed is supernatural. But the information we have about them is indeed incomplete and imperfect – often based on hearsay, on some stories and legend, on tradition, etc.

The battle of Thermopylae is a good example – we don’t know the exact numbers, the exact events, and we certainly can’t say that the speeches and the (sometimes legendary) details reported by Herodotus are true.

Like always, it depends on what the claim is. If the claim is simply that an important battle took place in which an outnumbered force was victorious, then I would say that there is adequate evidence for that claim. For example, archeological evidence supports some of Herodutus’ specific details, sources from both Greek and Persian sides support the claim, etc.

Now, if you wanted to make a more specific claim, like the exact number of soldiers on either side, then I wouldn’t merely accept the numbers in Herodotus – historians argue points like these all the time.

If you wanted to make a really specific claim, like the exact words that Herodotus attributes to some of the figures in the battle, then I would say that we don’t really have enough information to accept the claim that those exact words were spoken. That doesn’t mean that the claim is false – just that we don’t have enough evidence to accept it.

If you wanted to make a claim about the supernatural or magic (and I think there might be some claims like that involving the Delphic Oracle), I would very much protest that there is not enough evidence to support those claims.

i’d sincerely be interested in learning what you believe makes an ancient document historically reliable.

Well, I’m not a historian, so I don’t think I’m qualified to answer that question. Generally, I have no problem accepting mundane events that are confirmed in multiple contemporary sources and have some archeological evidence for their existence. If you want to start making really specific claims, then I would say that it depends on the evidence in each case.

If you wanted to make magical claims about history, then I would really want to be sure that you’re not just mistaking legend for reality.

 

[WarriorInChrist]

I am having a few issues regarding the need for ‘proof’ in our catholic faith. I have been asked several times by athiests, as I’m sure you have, how we can be so sure of our beliefs and what cold hard proof do we have. I’m curious as to how you approach this question-do you go down the track of complete faith without proof, building a personal relationship with God; or do you use the New Testament as proof as a creator as well as things like Near Death Experiences and Intelligent Design. I’m intrigued to hear your thoughts!

If we had all the proof in front of us and only then with that prerequisite would we believe, how meaningful is that? Is that sincere by any means? Those who stay by God’s side whether he’s rich, poor, see him or not, get what we want from Him on this earth or not, are clearly quite sincere and that is all He wants for us to do I believe. He doesn’t want to buy His way into your heart, but rather let you make the choice and WANT to love Him in return.

 

[WarriorInChrist]

We have no way of knowing for sure.

So the next question becomes – how do we distinguish between those options?

You have no evidence to demonstrate that one of these options is corect, and you are the one claiming to know that one of these options is correct.

I don’t make claims to know the origins of the universe. I do not see any evidence that would make a supernatural explanation any more likely.

If historical people wrote about these things as HISTORICAL matters, then why wouldn’t you believe it? It’s almost as if you’re picking a newspaper up from back then. Do you believe anything else in history for that matter? I often wonder why some people choose to believe one set of books over another when they’re both the same. If you ask someone if it’s raining outside and you can clearly see that everything is sopping wet, what need is there to keep questioning if it’s raining? Now if it ruined your trip to the beach and that’s not what you want to believe because it interferes with your life and plans, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re going to be at the beach anyway in some bad weather. Rainclouds will not disperse because you will them to.

Secondly, this idea of “I wasn’t there, I don’t know” doesn’t really hold any water, in my eyes, opinion, and experience. This reminds me of how shocked a teenager was with me when I said I used to buy CD’s. He grew up downloading music strictly and using an iPod. Then when I told him people even older than myself used tapes and vinyl LP’s to listen to music, he was baffled, yet these events and technologies did in fact exist. The problem is, we get used to everyday life here in THIS time that it’s hard to imagine things being any other way. On that note, just because you may not have been around during a certain event, does not mean the event never took place.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m not making a claim about origins. I’m quite candid about the fact that “We don’t know” (which is the only correct answer).

im going to break down each of your arguments and the corresponding refutations in seperate posts, to make it easier for people to follow.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So when we examine your argument, we find you using causality to address the Big Bang, before which there was no time and…perhaps…no causality.

Notice the word “perhaps.” We don’t know. We’re at a loss for an explanation.

refutation.

the big bang happened

obviously then, causality operates pre BB regardless of time.

 

[JDaniel]

refutation.

the big bang happened

obviously then, causality operates pre BB regardless of time.

Maybe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is possible that whatever it was that exploded into the Big Bang was following some kind of natural law that we don’t know anything about (a law that defies causality? That conforms to some different kind of causality?).

refutation.

natural law requires nature.

gravity decreases as a square of distance,
light travels 300,000 km per second
conservation of mass
etc, etc, etc.

any natural laws previous to the Big Bang necessitate a universe to cause those laws.

what caused that universe?

in other words there could be no laws in the absence of a universe

 

[warpspeedpetey]

[By the way, you keep repeating that matter always existing would violate the second law of thermodynamics. It wouldn’t. That law only operates over time, and we’re talking about a “time” when there was no time.]

refutation.

change can obviously occur in a pre big bang enironment, because the big bang occured, regardless of time

if change occurs in the pre bib bang environment than entropy can occur.

always existing matter still violates the second law of thermodynamics.

p.s. no science supports the idea of always existing matter.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You keep claiming that my position is based on “desire” when in fact it’s based on a refusal to accept your argument, which isn’t convincing.

1. no causality before the big bang

obviously false because the big bang happened.

1. natural laws caused the big bang

natural laws require nature, doesn’t escape the need for a cause.

1. matter always existed, the second law only applies with time.

if the big bang occured than change is possible, ergo entropy is also.

what in this is not convincing?

please tell me why you arent convinced of these things.

I’m not convinced that everything must have a cause;

even though that is impossible in the face of both science and logic, you choose to hold that position?

you may as well believe the earth is flat.

I’m not convinced that the universe in some form may not have always existed;

except for those pesky laws of physics, and the fact there is no scientific support for that.

I’m not convinced that there is such a thing as the supernatural;

‘supernatural’, metaphysically means non-physical. i assume you are talking about ghosties an ghoulies and such.

I’m not convinced that, even if I granted your entire flawed argument, that I would conclude anything beyond a deist god (which is only half a step removed from many kinds of atheism anyway).

the tone of this comment seems to imply that its not so bad if you can stay on the atheist side of things.

you claim the arguments aren’t convincing, but comments like these make your bias clear

In short, I’m not convinced. That doesn’t mean I know the answer.

ok then, your more convinced of

1. matter alwasys existing,
2. effects with no cause

these ideas are impossible according to every scientific priciple we know, and every logical inference from observation.

yet you still believe they are possible.

yeah, your not biased at all.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your continued confusion on this point is probably my fault for not making my point clearer, I suppose.
.

hello? you said not to claim victiry to soon, but its been 4 days, and im starting to feel a little victorious.

are you going to respond?

 

[xyneshia]

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we cannot see…so we cannot demand “proof” in exchange for faith.

 

[joemccarron]

“Proof” for faith is an oxymoron. Faith is an entirely subjective, personal experience and commitment, and wholly different than the world of detached, objective reason and analysis.

That is not what John thought. He wrote of Jesus’ public miracles so that we might believe in him. That is he gave us reasons and proof that he was the son of God. Remember the Greek word pistis - which is interpreted as faith in the NT basically means belief and trust. This notion that faith and belief must not have any reason or evidence supporting it is a new one that would be foreign to Paul or John. We can use reason to come to faith/belief.

 

[joemccarron]

A proof is a subjective thing. Let me explain.

In logic we say some arguments are sound. A sound argument is one whose premises are all true and the conclusion necessarily follows from those true premises. Hence the conclusion is necessarily true as well. Sounds like this would be a proof right? Well…

An argument can be a sound argument but still not be a proof if the person you are trying to convince doesn’t believe the premises. Yes they are true premises but sometimes that doesn’t really matter. People often believe what is true is false. So what can you do? Well you can try to find reasons to convince them that the premises are true - more premises. You may be able to do this.

But here is the trick. You need to have a dialogue. People believe all sorts of things. Until you ask them what they believe there is no way you will know what sorts of premises they may accept.

Moreover don’t despair. Some people have decided for whatever reason believe more strongly that Christianity is wrong than any other belief they hold. Hence when you show that there other beliefs support the view that Christianity is true they will simply change those beliefs so the beliefs no longer support Christianity. Don’t despair have patience. Let them shuffle beliefs around.

What to talk about? Well I like to talk about moral beliefs and why they believe certain things are right and others wrong. Ultimately show them that if morals don’t come from God we they are just believing things that are made up.